Gardner v. Bean

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Gardner v. Bean

124 Mass. 347, 1878 Mass. LEXIS 317

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided April 2, 1878·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

By the Court.

The instruction to the jury was correct. The fact that the plaintiffs originally charged the goods to the agent, with whom they dealt, did not preclude them from resorting to the principal, when afterwards discovered. The statement, in their petition in bankruptcy against the agent, that he owed them this debt, was not conclusive against their right to maintain this action which they had already brought against the principal, and was rightly submitted to the jury, with all the evidence in the case. Raymond v. Crown & Eagle Mills, 2 Met 319. Exceptions overruled.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By the Court.

The instruction to the jury was correct. The fact that the plaintiffs originally charged the goods to the agent, with whom they dealt, did not preclude them from resorting to the principal, when afterwards discovered. The statement, in their petition in bankruptcy against the agent, that he owed them this debt, was not conclusive against their right to maintain this action which they had already brought against the principal, and was rightly submitted to the jury, with all the evidence in the case. Raymond v. Crown & Eagle Mills, 2 Met 319. Exceptions overruled.

Gardner v. Bean, 124 Mass. 347, 1878 Mass. LEXIS 317 (Mass. 1878).

Pincite

124 Mass. 347 (Gardner v. Bean) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related